Appalling new prison photos!!! - DPChallenge Forums

10/25/2005 10:53:51 PM · #476

Godamn you are full of shit.

10/25/2005 11:03:14 PM · #477

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Godamn you are full of shit.

If you can, provide evidence of what "shit" I'm full of. :)

What is it, in the liberal mindset, that makes it impossible to make statements that can be substantiated, or qualify them as being beliefs or opinions, and to offer the substantive evidence for statements that are questioned, or offer rationale for opinions, when asked?
It shouldn't be a difficult task, so why is it that only conservatives seem capable of doing it?

mpemberton

10/25/2005 11:12:29 PM · #478

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Godamn you are full of shit.

If you can, provide evidence of what "shit" I'm full of. :)

What is it, in the liberal mindset, that makes it impossible to make statements that can be substantiated, or qualify them as being beliefs or opinions, and to offer the substantive evidence for statements that are questioned, or offer rationale for opinions, when asked?
It shouldn't be a difficult task, so why is it that only conservatives seem capable of doing it?

Liberal mind set is akin to saying Natzi, now days in America. Which is an interesting transference.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

10/25/2005 11:35:47 PM · #479

Originally posted by mpemberton:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Godamn you are full of shit.

If you can, provide evidence of what "shit" I'm full of. :)

What is it, in the liberal mindset, that makes it impossible to make statements that can be substantiated, or qualify them as being beliefs or opinions, and to offer the substantive evidence for statements that are questioned, or offer rationale for opinions, when asked?
It shouldn't be a difficult task, so why is it that only conservatives seem capable of doing it?

Liberal mind set is akin to saying Natzi, now days in America. Which is an interesting transference.

Sorry, Michael, and other non-US members. To be clear, my use of the term "liberal" is that of the US, not the "liberal" of Canada, the UK or Europe. My own preferred definition of a "liberal" in the US is:
"one whose political or social views put a great emphasis on creating new social patterns or values, often with the help of direct government action. (Contrasted with conservative views, which put more emphasis on the importance of traditional values and social patterns.) Liberals view society as something that can be easily reshaped to meet changing conditions. They believe that many existing social patterns, including marriage, gender roles, and race relations are severely flawed and unfair."
Though used often in a somewhat pejoritive manner, it is MUCH less harsh than referring to someone using a term like NAZI. It is merely a shorthand way of saying anti-conservative.
Thanks for the reminder. I will try to refrain from using the term since it is confusing to my fellow DPCers.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

10/25/2005 11:38:40 PM · #480

A few articles pertinent to this discussion from today's newspapers:

"Stepping up a confrontation with the Senate over the handling of detainees, the White House is insisting that the Central Intelligence Agency be exempted from a proposed ban on abusive treatment of suspected Qaeda militants and other terrorists.

The Senate defied a presidential veto threat nearly three weeks ago and approved, 90 to 9, an amendment to a $440 billion military spending bill that would ban the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of any detainee held by the United States government. This could bar some techniques that the C.I.A. has used in some interrogations overseas.

But in a 45-minute meeting last Thursday, Vice President Dick Cheney and the C.I.A. director, Porter J. Goss, urged Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who wrote the amendment, to support an exemption for the agency, arguing that the president needed maximum flexibility in dealing with the global war on terrorism, said two government officials who were briefed on the meeting. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the discussions."

Read the article here:
White House Seeks Exception in Abuse Ban - New York Times

"Autopsy reports on 44 prisoners who died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan indicate that 21 were victims of homicide, including eight who appear to have been fatally abused by their captors, the American Civil Liberties Union reported Monday.

The abuse involved cases in which detainees were smothered, beaten or exposed to the elements, sometimes during interrogation. Many of these cases had been brought to light previously but now have been confirmed through U.S. military autopsies. Some of the deaths followed abusive interrogations by elite Navy SEALs, military intelligence officers and the CIA, the ACLU said."

Read the article here:
Autopsies Support Abuse Allegations - L.A. Times

If anyone has a problem accessing these articles, I'll copy and paste the full text here.

10/26/2005 12:08:16 AM · #481

Rather than asking Judith to make lengthy cut & pastes, here are links to non-subscription sites where you can read the articles she cited ( if my quick comparison is correct ):

NYTimes Article by Eric Schmitt as posted in the Denver Post

LATimes Article by John Hendron as posted in Newsday

Thanks for the post, Judith. After I have had the opportunity to research the articles, I may post a response / reaction - tomorrow, that is, right now, I'm off to sleep. Thanks again.

( edit for spelling )

Message edited by author 2005-10-26 00:09:53.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/26/2005 02:33:15 AM · #482

Another article:
White House pressures Congress to reject torture amendment

Originally posted by AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congressional negotiators are feeling heat from the White House and constituents as they consider whether to back a Senate-approved ban on torturing detainees in U.S. custody or weaken it as the White House prefers.

Led by Vice President Dick Cheney, the Bush administration is floating a proposal that would allow the president to exempt covert agents outside the Defense Department from the prohibition.

McCain, himself a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, said he rejected the administration's alternative language because "that would basically allow the CIA to engage in torture."

How Christian like.

ScottK

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

10/26/2005 05:08:39 PM · #483

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Godamn you are full of shit.

You know, that is such a powerful and persuasive argument. How can anyone possibly refute your use of facts put forward here. I bow to your elequent debating skills.

::rolls eyes::

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

10/26/2005 05:45:31 PM · #484

OK. I've done some research on the McCain proposal, and will attempt to describe it first, then offer my opinions.
First the actual amendment ( I will bold the verbiage that I feel is the crux of the administrations challenge:

"(a) In General.--No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section.

(c) Limitation on Supersedure.--The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section.

(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.--In this section, the term "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

Second, the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment contains two pertinent Articles. Article 1 says:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

( Sidebar: Note that the definition of torture that we have been debating the last few days is taken verbatim from the United Nations own Conventions Against Torture... document )

Anyway, the other pertinent Article is Article 16, which says:

Article 16

Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

In essence UN Article 16 extends the definition of Torture, to, for example, actions that cause mental anguish that are NOT "severe" or "painful" as defined in Article 1. This is, I believe the point of contention with the administration. Article 16 would make any kind of "mental anguish" tantamount to "torture".

While the Bush administration seems willing to abide by the legal opinions offered by the Levin memorandum as it applies to treatment of prisoners and detainees, they appear to be unwilling to be bound by the same for illegal combatants ( terrorists ) being interrogated by the CIA and other non-defense units.

While I abhor what gingerbaker says we all know to be "torture", I don't think that keeping a bright light on in someone's cell for a couple of days IS torture, though under the UN definitions it could be deemed such, and I KNOW that there are plenty of folks out there who would love to charge Bush & company with being guilty of torture on such a legal technicality.

The White House did offer to accept the amendment if an exception were made such that it "shall not apply with respect to clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States, that are carried out by an element of the United States government other than the Department of Defense and are consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and treaties to which the United States is a party, if the president determines that such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack."

This seems reasonable to me. It makes the general amendment applicable to all Defense Department units ( meaning that true war prisoners can not even be subjected to less-than-"severe" treatment, while allowing the non-defense units a little more leeway with terrorists - though STILL not permitting "severe" actions.

Message edited by author 2005-10-26 17:53:32.

Riponlady

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

10/26/2005 06:02:08 PM · #485

Just a simple question
Why keep a bright light on in someone's cell for a couple of days?

Is it to cause them to be disturbed, lose sensory perception, feel threatened or is it just so they can read easier?

P

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

10/26/2005 07:07:52 PM · #486

Originally posted by Riponlady:

It's so they will become irritated ( or as you say, disturbed ), tired, and frustrated. If they don't consider that the information they have is THAT important, they may then be willing to trade it for "lights out" and a good night's sleep. The point is, that the information that they feel isn't very important, when combined with OTHER seemingly unimportant information, may prove to be valuable after all.

And if you feel that sleep depravation for a couple of nights is "torture" ( as I may have incorrectly inferred you do from the tone of your post ) then how do you respond to the incredible amount of it that we have going on in the civilian population all the time ( and not just in the USA ): residents at most teaching hospitals, rescue workers, firefighters, police, Red Cross workers, etc. etc. I don't think that THEY would call a couple days without sleep "torture". TorturOUS perhaps, but not "torture".

Riponlady

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

10/26/2005 08:06:01 PM · #487

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Riponlady:
Just a simple question
Why keep a bright light on in someone's cell for a couple of days?

Is it to cause them to be disturbed, lose sensory perception, feel threatened or is it just so they can read easier?

P

It's so they will become irritated ( or as you say, disturbed ), tired, and frustrated. If they don't consider that the information they have is THAT important, they may then be willing to trade it for "lights out" and a good night's sleep. The point is, that the information that they feel isn't very important, when combined with OTHER seemingly unimportant information, may prove to be valuable after all.

And if you feel that sleep depravation for a couple of nights is "torture" ( as I may have incorrectly inferred you do from the tone of your post ) then how do you respond to the incredible amount of it that we have going on in the civilian population all the time ( and not just in the USA ): residents at most teaching hospitals, rescue workers, firefighters, police, Red Cross workers, etc. etc. I don't think that THEY would call a couple days without sleep "torture". TorturOUS perhaps, but not "torture".

They choose to take part in such a role and have accepted that sleep deprivation is something they can cope with without it harming them. Unfortunately prisoners do not have the right to say that they are leaving the situation.
If interrogators are not skilled enough to get non-important info from prisoners without resorting to this form of treatment then they are not doing their job!
Where does "irritation" end aand torture begin? Define how long a few days is? Who makes the judgement as to what each person's limit is?
Sorry cannot condone this form of treatment in a civilised world.
P

Message edited by author 2005-10-26 20:40:53.

10/26/2005 08:21:30 PM · #488

I wonder what Jesus would say about treating people in this way.

Oh the culture of life we promote in the US; with more under 18 year olds in jail for life without parol than ANY OTHER COUNTRY ON FUCKING EARTH.

frychikn

Olympus C-5050Z

10/26/2005 08:33:36 PM · #489

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Godamn you are full of shit.

God-damn, you are sure full of class!

10/26/2005 08:53:23 PM · #490

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Why do you all WONDER what Jesus would think or do? Why don't you all just read a BIBLE for yourselves instead of WONDERING?
For what it's worth,

"Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause. And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face. And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life. So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown." ( Job 2:1-7 )

Apparently GOD didn't have a problem with authorizing Satan to "torture" Job, for a righteous purpose.

Following Paul's conversion on the Damascus road, this is what scripture records:

"In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, "Ananias!" "Yes, Lord," he answered. The Lord told him, "Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight." "Lord," Ananias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name." But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name." ( Acts 9:10-16 )

It appears that Christ intended to make the Apostle Paul "suffer". Did he mean "torture"? Let's see what kind of "suffering" Paul endured -

"I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches." ( 2 Corinthians 11:23-28 )

Do you not think that Christ loved Paul? Yet HE permitted Paul to suffer what I'm sure we would all agree was "torture" for HIS namesake.

Still WONDERING what Jesus would say about treating people in this way?

Message edited by author 2005-10-26 20:54:46.

10/26/2005 09:02:00 PM · #491

First of all, Ron, you are making too light of what is going on with detainees overseas. This is not just keeping lights on and you know it. Read some of the things they've been doing. They have been beating detainees, getting attack dogs to rip at skin and genitals, breaking the limbs with baseball bats, attaching electrical wires to mucus membranes of genitals, shoving the same gastric tubes down the nasal passages of all the prisoners at Abu Ghraib, etc. Need I become more descriptive?

The actions that are taking place in places like Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, and the many other jails that the US run in Iraq are horrendous beyond belief! I'm ashamed to say that I"m an American. YOu are in Denial big time and you should be listening to some of the things that are being said from the people that have worked there and suffered there.

It's amazing that you demand to see documentary proof and focus in on the letter of the law that the Bush administration is promoting torture, or at least not doing anything about it, but at the same time you won't give the same right to other people when they have been detained for years now without charges or the right to see counsel. The INternational Committee of the Red Cross which has visited Abu Ghraib has stated that 90% of the detainees had nothing to do with terrorism or the Iraqi insurgency, yet they remain detained, tortured, and in many cases killed.

Many organizations and individuals, have castigated the Bush administration and denounced their actions, or inactions, as the case may be, including Human Rights Watch, the ACLU, Amnesty International, Seymour Hirsh, and Col. Janis Karpinski, who was in charge of Abu Ghraib when it all started. She has named names and it shows that these horrific acts were being promoted at the highest levels of the Bush administration, including Rumsfeld, General Geoffrey Miller, who was in charge of Guantanamo Bay before going to Iraq, and Col. Pappas, and Alberto Gonzales.

Now please tell me why if the Bush administration was not encouraging horrific acts of torture all along they want to maintain the right to do so now and will veto the bill if it does not include the right to do so? What they want is to allow the CIA and military intelligence to be doing them, and not the general enlisted man or woman and for them to be beyond the law. That is a very scary thought and you could be sure that if these acts of torture keep on being committed you can kiss any thoughts of peace in the Mideast goodbye.

10/26/2005 09:02:23 PM · #492

Originally posted by Riponlady:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Riponlady:
Just a simple question
Why keep a bright light on in someone's cell for a couple of days?

Is it to cause them to be disturbed, lose sensory perception, feel threatened or is it just so they can read easier?

P

It's so they will become irritated ( or as you say, disturbed ), tired, and frustrated. If they don't consider that the information they have is THAT important, they may then be willing to trade it for "lights out" and a good night's sleep. The point is, that the information that they feel isn't very important, when combined with OTHER seemingly unimportant information, may prove to be valuable after all.

And if you feel that sleep depravation for a couple of nights is "torture" ( as I may have incorrectly inferred you do from the tone of your post ) then how do you respond to the incredible amount of it that we have going on in the civilian population all the time ( and not just in the USA ): residents at most teaching hospitals, rescue workers, firefighters, police, Red Cross workers, etc. etc. I don't think that THEY would call a couple days without sleep "torture". TorturOUS perhaps, but not "torture".

They choose to take part in such a role and have accepted that sleep deprivation is something they can cope with without it harming them. Unfortunately prisoners do not have the right to say that they are leaving the situation.
If interrogators are not skilled enough to get non-important info from prisoners without resorting to this form of treatment then they are not doing their job!
Where does "irritation" end aand torture begin? Define how long a few days is? Who makes the judgement as to what each person's limit is?
Sorry cannot condone this form of treatment in a civilised world.
P

If no one can make the determination, then I suppose the only recourse is to let ALL of the prisoners out of jail. Because according to UN Article 16 they are ALL being "tortured" - being in prison is DEGRADING, and the prison environment causes mental anguish. That makes them irritated, frustrated, and upset. How can any of us determnie just what each persons limit is? Where does irritation end and torture begin? Who makes the judgement?
Or can you condone that, but only for those who have been tried and convicted? And you GOTTA believe that every trial ends in a TRUE and JUST verdict, right?

10/26/2005 09:10:04 PM · #493

It also goes to show you that no one in the Bush administration has served a meaningful minute of time in the military because if they had, they would know that when our men and women are captured by the enemy they will also come under some pretty harsh treatment because of the way we are treating their people. Colin Powell and 28 other retired high ranking military officers have all come out against torture.

10/26/2005 09:17:25 PM · #494

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I have already made it very clear that I do not condone "torture". However, the UN CAT Articles 1 and 16 combine to make "discomfort" equivalent to "torture" and the McCain amendment wants to incorporate those UN articles into US LAW! The administration's response does NOT seek to permit "torture". As I posted earlier, the White House did offer to accept the amendment if an exception were made such that it "shall not apply with respect to clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States, that are carried out by an element of the United States government other than the Department of Defense and are consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and treaties to which the United States is a party, if the president determines that such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack."
Pay particular attention to the part that says that such actions, though NOT bound by UN CAT article 1/16 would STILL be bound by US Constitutional law and treaties. And the MILITARY WOULD be bound by UN CAT 1/16.
I cannot fathom why anyone living in the US would want terrorist plotters to be granted complete immunity from interrogation ( because ANY interrogation method can cause mental anguish ). Will it take an attack in YOUR neighborhood to convince you that people are plotting to KILL you? And you are unwilling to do anything about it, even if you overhear them plotting to do it??? Incredible.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/26/2005 09:32:58 PM · #495

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Yeah. Like the al Qaeda beheadings didn't start until AFTER they found out that some had been tortured in Abu Ghraib. And the dragging of our soldiers bodies thru the streets in Mogadishu in 1993 was AFTER they found out we had tortured someone? And the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 was AFTER we had tortured someone?
No. I don't think so. The terrorists don't RE-act to what we have done. They ACT on their own. They're TERRORISTS.
FWIW, BUSH has come out against TORTURE. Rumsfeld has come out against TORTURE. EVERYONE is against TORTURE. We're not talking about TORTURE. We're talking about interrogations techniques that do not rise to the level of TORTURE ( except as loosely expanded by Article 16 ).

Message edited by author 2005-10-26 21:36:30.

ScottK

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

10/26/2005 09:33:56 PM · #496

He would blame an attack in his neighborhood on Bush, no matter the circumstances, the attackers or the motives.

10/26/2005 09:55:31 PM · #497

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
First of all, Ron, you are making too light of what is going on with detainees overseas. This is not just keeping lights on and you know it. Read some of the things they've been doing. They have been beating detainees, getting attack dogs to rip at skin and genitals, breaking the limbs with baseball bats, attaching electrical wires to mucus membranes of genitals, shoving the same gastric tubes down the nasal passages of all the prisoners at Abu Ghraib, etc. Need I become more descriptive?

The actions that are taking place in places like Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, and the many other jails that the US run in Iraq are horrendous beyond belief! I'm ashamed to say that I"m an American. YOu are in Denial big time and you should be listening to some of the things that are being said from the people that have worked there and suffered there.

It's amazing that you demand to see documentary proof and focus in on the letter of the law that the Bush administration is promoting torture, or at least not doing anything about it, but at the same time you won't give the same right to other people when they have been detained for years now without charges or the right to see counsel. The INternational Committee of the Red Cross which has visited Abu Ghraib has stated that 90% of the detainees had nothing to do with terrorism or the Iraqi insurgency, yet they remain detained, tortured, and in many cases killed.

Many organizations and individuals, have castigated the Bush administration and denounced their actions, or inactions, as the case may be, including Human Rights Watch, the ACLU, Amnesty International, Seymour Hirsh, and Col. Janis Karpinski, who was in charge of Abu Ghraib when it all started. She has named names and it shows that these horrific acts were being promoted at the highest levels of the Bush administration, including Rumsfeld, General Geoffrey Miller, who was in charge of Guantanamo Bay before going to Iraq, and Col. Pappas, and Alberto Gonzales.

Now please tell me why if the Bush administration was not encouraging horrific acts of torture all along they want to maintain the right to do so now and will veto the bill if it does not include the right to do so? What they want is to allow the CIA and military intelligence to be doing them, and not the general enlisted man or woman and for them to be beyond the law. That is a very scary thought and you could be sure that if these acts of torture keep on being committed you can kiss any thoughts of peace in the Mideast goodbye.

I have already made it very clear that I do not condone "torture". However, the UN CAT Articles 1 and 16 combine to make "discomfort" equivalent to "torture" and the McCain amendment wants to incorporate those UN articles into US LAW! The administration's response does NOT seek to permit "torture". As I posted earlier, the White House did offer to accept the amendment if an exception were made such that it "shall not apply with respect to clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States, that are carried out by an element of the United States government other than the Department of Defense and are consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and treaties to which the United States is a party, if the president determines that such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack."
Pay particular attention to the part that says that such actions, though NOT bound by UN CAT article 1/16 would STILL be bound by US Constitutional law and treaties. And the MILITARY WOULD be bound by UN CAT 1/16.
I cannot fathom why anyone living in the US would want terrorist plotters to be granted complete immunity from interrogation ( because ANY interrogation method can cause mental anguish ). Will it take an attack in YOUR neighborhood to convince you that people are plotting to KILL you? And you are unwilling to do anything about it, even if you overhear them plotting to do it??? Incredible.

I did not say that terrorists should be granted immunity from interrogation but rather from torture. Torture has been shown time and time again not to yield meaningful intelligence as people will say anything to get out from under their mistreatment. Do you know when any of us overheard plots to kill Americans? Before September 11, 2001 and the Bush administration chose not to do anything about it then and ignored it. I'm supposed to believe that they will do something meaningful about it now, especially after the Bush administation has screwed up Iraq and Afghanistan and created many more terrorists that existed before 9/11?

Again, this is not about discomfort. This is about horrific acts of torture, and in some cases murder, being perpetrated by people in the US military and intelligence communities that is wide spread and systematic. Do you think that a terrorist, who is willing to commit a suicidal terrorist action is going to break down and tell all because the "lights are kept on" or they are wearing womens' underwear? Further more, a GREAT majority of the people being held in US prisons overseas have nothing to do with terrorism and have been caught up in a wide net to find needles in haystacks. The ICRC report from 2003 had stated that more than 90% of the detainees at Abu Ghraib were not associated with
terrorism.

So here you are asking for documentary proof that shows that the Bush administration are promoting torture, or that Alberto Gonzales has advised the president to withdraw from GPW so that he won't be prosecuted under the US WAr Powers Act, and hanging onto every single word or phrase, yet when the citizens of another country are asking for basic human rights, such as to be charged with a crime or gain access to legal counsel, you are with the Bush administration to deny them those rights, when they, and you, haven't got a single scrap of evidence that they are connected with terrorism.

If you are against torture then you should be railing loudly about what the Bush administration wants. And since when has the Bush administration had any kind of respect for The Constitution? Can the American public expect that George Bush is going to be able to make any kind of meaningful determination about who is a possible terrorist?

Col. Janis Karpinski has named names (including Rumsfeld, Generals Miller, Pappas and Sanchez and has written a book (One Woman's Army) about this and yet you are not asking for an independent inquiry? I thought you said you were against torture?

10/26/2005 09:55:47 PM · #498

I am sickened by you RonB. What twisted parallel universe do you live in where the bible is documented fact but reports on the ground from people down in it you won't trust?

Col. Janis Karpinski, the Former Head of Abu Ghraib, Admits She Broke the Geneva Conventions But Says the Blame "Goes All the Way to The Topâ��

Sometimes I think you can't be for real RonB. That youâ��re arguing here on DPC has to be like a game to you and that you are arguing points for the sake of argument.

I feel sick to my stomach and what makes me even more ashamed than my governmentsâ�� behavior, is the Americans that will defend it at all costs.

10/26/2005 10:11:14 PM · #499

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I did not say that terrorists should be granted immunity from interrogation but rather from torture

YOU did not. Article 16 does. That's my point.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Torture has been shown time and time again not to yield meaningful intelligence as people will say anything to get out from under their mistreatment. Do you know when any of us overheard plots to kill Americans?

Not really. But SOMEONE has, and some attacks have been PREVENTED as a result

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Before September 11, 2001 and the Bush administration chose not to do anything about it then and ignored it.

As did the Clinton adminstration.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I'm supposed to believe that they will do something meaningful about it now, especially after the Bush administation has screwed up Iraq and Afghanistan and created many more terrorists that existed before 9/11?

The Bush administration cannot create more terrorists any more than I can create more Democratic socialists. Terrorism is something that comes from within.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Again, this is not about discomfort. This is about horrific acts of torture, and in some cases murder, being perpetrated by people in the US military and intelligence communities that is wide spread and systematic. Do you think that a terrorist, who is willing to commit a suicidal terrorist action is going to break down and tell all because the "lights are kept on" or they are wearing womens' underwear?

Apparently, yes, some do.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Further more, a GREAT majority of the people being held in US prisons overseas have nothing to do with terrorism and have been caught up in a wide net to find needles in haystacks. The ICRC report from 2003 had stated that more than 90% of the detainees at Abu Ghraib were not associated with terrorism.

And I would guess that more than 90% of those detainees weren't "tortured" either.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

So here you are asking for documentary proof that shows that the Bush administration are promoting torture, or that Alberto Gonzales has advised the president to withdraw from GPW so that he won't be prosecuted under the US WAr Powers Act, and hanging onto every single word or phrase, yet when the citizens of another country are asking for basic human rights, such as to be charged with a crime or gain access to legal counsel, you are with the Bush administration to deny them those rights, when they, and you, haven't got a single scrap of evidence that they are connected with terrorism.

If you are against torture then you should be railing loudly about what the Bush administration wants. And since when has the Bush administration had any kind of respect for The Constitution? Can the American public expect that George Bush is going to be able to make any kind of meaningful determination about who is a possible terrorist?

Col. Janis Karpinski has named names (including Rumsfeld, Generals Miller, Pappas and Sanchez and has written a book (One Woman's Army) about this and yet you are not asking for an independent inquiry? I thought you said you were against torture?

I guess that the best I can offer is to say that I hope you get what you ask for, and deserve as a result.

Unfortunately, I can't say that.

Message edited by author 2005-10-26 23:41:47.